Galileo's Heresy

[aball1035]

What was Galileo’s heresy that the Church charged him with? If it was heliocentrism, why arn’t 99% of Catholics said to be in heresy now?

 

[tafan]

Because no one believes the sun is stationary and the center of the universe.

 

[didymus]

What was Galileo’s heresy that the Church charged him with? If it was heliocentrism, why arn’t 99% of Catholics said to be in heresy now?

He was accused of heresy but not convicted.

His heliocentrism was not a problem, but in the same paper where he published his astronomical findings he also included Biblical and theological opinions which were problematical. The Church’s attitude, then as now, was you do the science and leave the dogma to us.

If he were alive today and on these forums he’d be kicked off as a flame warrior. Like many geniuses he was could be exasperating.

 

[Berean2]

If he were alive today and on these forums he’d be kicked off as a flame warrior. Like many geniuses he was could be exasperating.

The more, the merrier: what a dreary life this would be if nobody had the courage to challenge deadly cliches.

 

[st_julie]

What was Galileo’s heresy that the Church charged him with? If it was heliocentrism, why arn’t 99% of Catholics said to be in heresy now?

I thought his problem was disobedience

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Like many geniuses he was could be exasperating.

From what I’ve read of the matter - and having been brought up believing all the anti-Catholic propaganda… not so much exasperating as terminally obnoxious. He was treated mercifully.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

The Church’s attitude, then as now, was you do the science and leave the dogma to us

If only that were true… when it comes to the science of sex and gender, the various reality-denying pronouncements by the Pope and others haven’t helped. When it comes to biological sex (not sexual orientation), the whole “Theology of the Body” thing just doesn’t work.
In the realm of Biology, the Church is in as big trouble here as it was dogmatically asserting the theological correctness of Ptolemaic Cosmology.

 

[excubitor]

What was Galileo’s heresy that the Church charged him with? If it was heliocentrism, why arn’t 99% of Catholics said to be in heresy now?

Good question. Have you been reading the other geocentric thread? Galileo was sentenced by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office for being greviously suspected of the heresy of heliocentricity.
Sadly, you are right and the vast bulk of Catholics believe the heresy of heliocentrism or its modern form of acentrism. Fortunately for them, most of them reject geocentrism out of ignorance. However for those who understand that it is a heresy it is most important that they believe in faith that the earth is the centre of the universe as described repeatedly in the scriptures and affirmed time and again by the early church fathers. Not to mention the repeated denouncements by the medieval church which were directly affirmed by no less than three popes and which were maintained as heresy on the Index of prohibited books for over 200 years, and which even as lately as Vatican 1 were rigidly enforced as follows.

“the Church, which together with the apostolic office of teaching, has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, derives from God the right and duty of proscribing false science, lest any should be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit. Therefore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend as legitimate conclusions of science such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of truth.” The Council also affirms the inerrancy of Scripture by dogmatically stating: “These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.” Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter 2, paragraph 7, 1870.

Now which conclusions of science had the church condemned prior to 1870? ONLY ONE. And that was the notion that the earth was moving. So as late as 1870 the weightiest council that the church could provide specifically forbade the faithful of the church to defend scientific conclusions which opposed the condemnations of the church. The council BOUND the faithful to regard these opositions of science as fallacious deceptions presenting an appearance of truth only. Did the people listen or obey the church of 1870? No they did not. Now please answer the following questions.

1. In what way does the church of today expose false science according to its God given mandate and right?
2. What kinds of false and vain deceits and philosophies could false science lead us into?
3. Which catholics today are standing up and opposing the philosophies of false science?
4. Which aspects or domains of modern science are presenting a false appearance of truth?
5. If the Vatican I council was not referring to the moving earth condemnation then which condemnation was it referring to?
6. Did the Council clarify its statement by saying "condemned by the church except in the matter of Galileo?
7. Which scriptures are violated by the teachings of science that they (the scriptures) must receive the most powerful endorsement in defence of them from the Council ?
8. Which conclusions of science are contrary to the doctrines of the faith?
9. Why is the modern teaching that the church must stay out of “matters of science” tolerated and even promoted when Vatican I specifically states that it is the churches God given duty to examine and proscribe as being false certain matters of science?

Now out of the decree quoted above the following Canon pronounced anathemas for the following reasons. Now remember this is as late as 1870 hundreds of years after Galileo.

Canon 4 On faith and reason
2. If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the church: let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And what happens today? Scientific theories and human reasonings are freely adopted which assign a different sense to a great multitude of issues in particular the literal creation account of Genesis, the geocentric universe, the flood of Noah.

And if anyone wants to exact a loophole and say that Vatican I does not specifically mention heliocentrism or the former condemnations of congregations of the Holy See then Vatican I is ready for you

we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see.

Reinterpreting the scriptures and the dogmas of the church is exactly forbidden in this following additional sentence from Vatican I

Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

 

[excubitor]

In the statement of faith of Vatican 1 it says

Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds,
since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures;
nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.

and again without equivocation or exception the statement of faith of Vatican 1 says

Likewise all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way whatever is to the contrary, and whatever heresies have been condemned, rejected and anathematised by the church, I too condemn, reject and anathematise.

Not a single exception as if to say “every heresy except geocentrism”

Therefore I too also condemn, reject and anathematise the teaching that the earth moves and I do so in obedience to the command of Vatican 1 because it was previously condemned as heresy by the Congregation of the Holy Office in its statement to Galileo.

Vatican 1 is the first church council since the Galileo affair and it utterly affirms the previous proclamations of the church without equivocation. It makes no effort whatsoever even after 200 years of secular flourishing of heliocentrism to make any exception for the most important debate in those recent centuries namely the moving earth debate.

It utterly forbids the changing of church dogmas with new knowledge, and it does so WITH the ANATHEMA extension which contains the mark of infallibility.

Now if anyone here imagine that this notable council of Vatican 1 which itself proclaimed the doctrine of papal infallibility was giving any support to those who might try to claim that previous condemnations of the church against the oppositions of science might themselves lack papal infallibility then they are most sorely and ever so severely mistaken. In fact quite the contrary, the whole point of the doctrine of papal infallibility was to utterly assert that the aforementioned previously stated dogmas of the congregations of the Holy See were all infallible WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

 

[excubitor]

What was Galileo’s heresy that the Church charged him with? If it was heliocentrism, why arn’t 99% of Catholics said to be in heresy now?

The fact that 99% of Catholics are in heresy is not unprecedented. In the Arian crisis the vast majority of Catholics were heretically believing the teachings of Arianism. However to their credit it had not at that time been declared as a heresy. But the heresy in that case was struck at the very nature of the Godhead which is probably more serious than the current heresy of modern days, but then who are we to judge the scaling of heresy. The Sacred Congregation of the Index stated that the notion that the earth goes about the sun was a false belief which was injurious to the faith. Any wonder therefore we see today the worst deterioration in the faith of the church that has ever been witnessed in the history of the church. To think that we are the first generation in the history of the people of God who do not believe that God created the heavens and earth in six days. This abominable condition is a direct consequence of the en-masse sell out to the heresy of heliocentrism.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

The Sacred Congregation of the Index stated that the notion that the earth goes about the sun was a false belief which was injurious to the faith.

Indeed it is false. They orbit around the common centre of mass, just a little off-centre from the middle of the Sun. But there are perturbations from other planets, and the curdling of space due to relativity makes a teeny contribution too.

Fortunately I cannot be guilty of the sin of Heresy, since I’m not Christian.

The Church usually gets things right in the end. Maybe after some mis-steps, and it may take awhile - a few centuries or longer - but it gets there in the end.

I have an affection for it, ever since my research showed that much of what I’d been taught as a child was Protestant Propaganda. The Protestant North had most of the printing presses, and the latitude to use them. In the South, the Church took a more conservative - even stifling - view. Despite the works of the Society of Jesus, it was still rather sluggish in response.

They caught up, by and large, with Vatican II. Now, while there are exceptions, I think they’re far more responsive to Reality than most Baptists.

The 19th century - which for my purposes ends in 1910 - was a low point though. That did the Church much harm. IMHO. As a non-Christian.

 

[edwest2]

There is no need to guess. Here is the story:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

God bless,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

What was Galileo’s heresy that the Church charged him with? If it was heliocentrism, why arn’t 99% of Catholics said to be in heresy now?

Regarding a person’s faith. Readers can use Scripture as inspiration for prayer. A doctrine about geocentricism is not necessary to communicate with our Creator about the marvels of His creation.

Common sense would say that for something to be a heresy there has to be a doctrine. There is no doctrine about geocentrism because it is in the realm of science and not in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Please note that The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office and The Sacred Congregation of the Index do not have the authority to declare a doctrine regarding the movements of earth, star, sun, and planets. They are free to advise as they please. They are free to say “dang that heliocentrism” all they want but that does not establish a Catholic doctrine regarding geocentricism.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17